Month

January 2013

Here you guys go falling for republican trickery–Chris Christie is full of it. Christie is the guy who less than a month before sandy was calling the President arrogant and that he had never led anything in his life; that Obama was a man walking in darkened room “clutching for the light switch of leadership and can’t find it”. He wasn’t willing to blame anyone but the president for the failures in Washington, not the tea party republicans or the Republican leadership in congress.

All this time he has been saying small government and cut government spending, now he is whining about money for his state. What happened to all the money he is supposedly saved New Jersey with his budget cuts. Now don’t get me wrong, I think New York and New Jersey should get the money–I am a New Yorker. But I am not falling for Christies act, he wants to be president, so I am viewing him through that lens and I think he might be overplaying his hand.

I don’t care how much the Republicans try and camouflage themselves–they are still Republicans and they believed in states’ rights, less government, intrusive medical procedures for women, rape is not rape, and tax cuts and no-bid contract for the top one percent, all while bloating the budget and stepping on the neck of the needy.

Like this:

Every time I hear someone talking about Hillary Clinton for 2016, I think what a drone. Not only is it a disrespect to Joe Biden it also doesn’t make any sense. Hillary is not as popular as everyone thinks. I cannot remind people too many times that she was supposed to be the winner the first time Barack Obama ran. Then just as now, she was the “presumptive nominee”. She ran a poor campaign and got quite desperate after citizens began casting their votes and it was clear that Barack Obama was going to be competition. Hillary and the media believed she would win Iowa, she came in third. By the time the primary got to New Hampshire a state she was supposed to win the president tied her, so she is not a winner. She offered no real vision, just herself. Simply, Hillary lacks authenticity—sounds like anyone you know. The President could have chosen her as vice President, and he did not. Would Hillary have been able to negotiate with Congress the way Joe Biden has on so many important legislation, remember her attempt at healthcare reform.

The argument for her candidacy is that she did a great job at state, but The President sets the agenda not the Secretary of State. Hillary is a Representative of the President and nothing more, remember his line during one of their debate “I look forward to you working for me too, Hillary”, she works for him. She is tasked with outreach and building relations, but when Secretary Clinton shows up in a foreign country she is not representing herself or her personal desires, she is a representative of the American Government and President of the United States. It’s not her personal show.

Hillary and her supporters are acting as if she is entitled to the presidency, why? Is it still because she was Bill Clinton’s wife? She was at best a mediocre Senator. She does not stick her neck out for anything or anyone—she didn’t do it for the American people. Not against Bush and the war in Iraq either by challenging him in 2004, or her vote for his war which she still refuses to say was a mistake; and not on Benghazi.

Why didn’t Hillary go out there and talk about Benghazi instead of letting Rice do it. Benghazi was the State Departments jurisdiction, so why didn’t Hillary go out there? The country wanted answers and she refused to step up in a crucial moment, her 3am test—could it be that she was thinking about 2016. She let Susan Rice take the heat for Benghazi and never came to her defense. The attacks on Rice were unjustified, she did not try to squelch them, and John McCain is her friend—how come she had no influence on him?

All I know is the Benghazi incident was the one line of attack that could have cost President Obamas re-election, and was a headache even after he won. I think the best thing Hillary could is spare the country and take her name out of contention as a possible candidate for 2016.

Joe Biden has been an incredibly loyal asset. I feel bad for Vice President Joe Biden who has been working hard for the past years supporting and fighting for The President’s agenda. The president chose Mr. Biden not just because he has been an outstanding member of congress, or because of his grasp of the issues that came before congress, or his expertise on foreign affairs but because he believes Joe is a man of conviction who sincerely cares about America, has concern for her citizens and wants to do good without compromising too much.. I applaud the president for giving Joe the initiative in the recent debates on gun control and the debt negotiations.

I don’t doubt that Joe is ambitious and wants to be president just as much as the next person, but I get the feeling Joe would be humbled by that experience. He does not seem to have a thirst for power or is driven by an ideological agenda and had never tried to get rich from being in congress. Plus Joe’s story is very compelling; I really think this is Joe’s time.

Like this:

When I hear about a controversial movie featuring Kerry Washington, Jamie Fox, Leonardo DiCaprio, Samuel Jackson, and Christoph Waltz (from Inglorious Bastards) I am intrigued. So I went to see Django Unchained because I wanted to know the truth about this movie. I don’t frequent the movies, mainly because I often fall asleep and I usually have to see a movie twice before I can fully grasp all it has to offer both in cinematography and storytelling. However, if you have seen a Tarantino movie there are some things you can expect like profanity and violence (plenty of blood and maybe some guts), this movie does not stray from the Tarantino formula in that sense.

Django opens like a typical Western with a sunny mountain vista except there are slaves in the shot and we are introduced to the world of Django. Some are complaining about the graphic violence in this movie, it certainly was not more violent than Kill Bill or Grindhouse, but I think I understand. Leonardo DiCaprios Candie as the white slaver, the hot box, metal masks, brandings and lashings are moments when the film forces the audience to confront the reality of chattel slavery. It is difficult to contend with the juxtaposition of the harsh brutality inflicted on Africans during slavery which was the norm and how modern liberal white America wants to be seen. I mean it is Tarantino and not Spike Lee, so I get the feeling white America expects Tarantino to paint them more favorably. There was a lot of vengeance being dished out but it is hard to say some of it wasn’t warranted or without provocation from Monsieur Candieland, or that it came solely from Django. There was a certain form of justice taken against Hilde by Stephen, there is a scene when Monsieur CandieLand is going to lose some “fight stock” where he unleashed some serious vengeance; and let’s not forget Mr. Shultz.

Is Django is a love story? In the traditional sense yes, Django is driven by a love for his lady but it is difficult to see how he embarks on his quest without the assistance from Dr. Shultz, the German Bounty Hunter who is hardly talked about but plays a main character. Mr. Shultz feelings about slavery are clear but can we say he embodies humanity? He had a lot in common with Monsieur CandieLand. For those who say there were black people who owned slaves, this movie points out some blacks became slave owners to free their family members and that being a black slaver was nothing to brag about.

Jamie Fox is very believable as Django, Kerry Washington delivers as expected, DiCaprio was convincing; but Samuel Jackson and Christoph Waltz gave stellar performances. Samuel is an actor who has defied all the stereotypes of Hollywood, I just saw him as Director Fury in The Avengers, and now here he is as House Negro Stephen in Django. I would say that showed range but if you take away all the special effects they are essentially the same character—even though Jackson makes them feel different. It is clear when Hollywood wants a Powerful Black Man they call Mr. Jackson.

Let me finish by saying the only thing offensive about Django was Tarantino’s cameo, he should definitely leave the acting to the professionals. As for the use of the “N-word” I thought it was appropriate for the time period in which the movie was set and lent credibility to the film. I don’t understand the objection to the movie based on the use of the “N-word”, especially if you haven’t seen it. I have no doubt this is satire asking us to find the humor amidst evil and mayhem. I liked it and give it a thumbs-up.

While Django is a great movie, it is fiction and not an attempt to accurately chronicle heroic Africans during the time of slavery; it is not Crispus Attucks, Dred Scott, or Nat Turner, those movies should still be made– and if the Wayans Brothers can get funding and distribution for every brain fart they call a movie, a more noted film maker should be able to get funding to produce a movie about Nat Turner.